Input validation

Due to improper input sanitization in SAP Sourcing and SAP Contract Lifecycle Management - version 1100, an attacker can redirect a user to a malicious website. In order to perform this attack, the attacker sends an email to the victim with a manipulated link that appears to be a legitimate SAP...

PT-2022-25782 · Sap · Sap Sourcing +1

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: SAP Sourcing and SAP Contract Lifecycle Management version 1100 Description: The issue arises from improper input sanitization, allowing an attacker to redirect a user to a malicious website. The attack is performed by sending an email with a...

SAP Sourcing和SAP Contract Lifecycle Management 1100 输入验证错误漏洞

SAP Sourcing and SAP Contract Lifecycle Management are both products of SAP, an in-house application that provides an end-to-end solution for the procurement process. SAP Sourcing is an on-premise application that provides an end-to-end solution for the procurement process.SAP Contract Lifecycle...

Storage collision in Collateral.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details collateral.sol is an upgradeable contract. Upgradeable contracts should not use the constructor to initialize variables, as these will be set in the contract storage of the implementation contract, instead of the intended contract storage ...

Users can get free collateral when using non-reverting on failure baseTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user calling Collateral's deposit function when baseToken is a non-reverting on failure ERC20 token, can get an arbitrary amount of collateral without actually depositing a single base token in the contract. function depositaddress recipient, uint256...

user's funds lock and incorrect code behavior because users withdrawal amount won't get reset for all users in each userPeriodLength in WithdrawHook contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact according to the comments in code: "Every time userPeriodLength seconds passes, the amount withdrawn for all users will be reset to 0" . but in current implementation only one of the users userToAmountWithdrawnThisPeriod value gets reset and this will...

exactInput allows stealing of funds via a malicious pool contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can lose funds during swapping. Proof of Concept The Router contract is a higher level contract that will be used by the majority of the users. The contract implements the exactInput functions that users call to perform multiple swaps in a single...

Insufficient support for fee-on-transfer type of ERC20

Lines of code Vulnerability details Some ERC20 token implementations have a fee that is charged on each token transfer. This means that the transferred amount isn't exactly what the receiver will get. A call to IERC20token.transferrecipient, 100 with a fee-on-transfer FOT of 5% will entitle the...

PrePOMarket.sol : a sender who is not included in the account list can front run and mint prior to setting the _mintHook

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact a sender who is not included in the account list can front run and mint prior to setting the mintHook. Proof of Concept The contract says, Minting will only be done by the team, and thus relies on the mintHook to enforce access controls. This is also why...

Unlimited Global & User Withdrawal right after previous period ends and new period begins

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Checks for Global and User Withdraw Limit Per Period are missing for the first withdrawal request right AFTER period length expires and a new period begins. First withdrawal request amount after period length expires can be way higher than...

Liquidity cannot be removed by an approved address via Router

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Using the Router, liquidity can only be removed by the owner of an NFT, which significantly limits liquidity management. The Pool contract, however, does allow approved addresses to remove liquidity. Proof of Concept The Router contract is a higher level...

Wrong variable is used for the first parameter of depositHook.hook()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Recipient is treated wrongly as sender. Proof of Concept As written here See DepositHook.solL43-L52, the first accepted parameter should be the sender. However, recipient See Collateral.solL53 is passed in here. Tools Used Manual Recommended Mitigation...

Lack of access control in AllowedMsgSenders contract.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact setAllowedMsgSenders lacks access control. This enables anyone to set themselves as an allowed message sender and call the send in tokenSender.sol to transfer out any amount bypassing all the checks imposed in the hooks. Proof of Concept...

Pool: The EMERGENCY state cannot be recovered

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner can call Pool.adminAction to set the Pool contract state to EMERGENCY, and in the EMERGENCY state, no liquidity can be added or transferred, and no swaps can be made. However, the Pool contract does not have a function to recover the EMERGENCY...

transfer is used on address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The codebase makes heavy use of the deprecated transfer function of address payable. Its will inevitably make the transaction fail when: 1. The receiver smart contract does not implement a payable function. 2. The receiver smart contract does...

Missing ReEntrancy Guard to executeAcceptBidWithCredit function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if the mint was initiated by a contract, then the contract is checked for its ability to receive ERC721 tokens. Without reentrancy guard, onERC721Received will allow an attacker controlled contract to call the mint again, which may not be desirable to so...

NFTs mintable after Auction deadline expires

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function on the LPDA.sol contract is not validating if the auction is still running, allowing a purchase to be made after the stipulated time. The endtime variable used to store the end date of the auction is not used at any point to validate...

wrong configuration can lock eth in LPDA contract forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details When creating an LPDA auction there are some sanity checks of the values used for the auction. But there is no check that the auction will not cause the price calculation to underflow after a while. This calculation of the price can underflow in getPrice in...

Ownership of EscherERC721.sol contracts can be changed, thus creator roles become useless

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact creator = has a CREATORROLE in Escher.sol non-creator = doesn't have a CREATORROLE in Escher.sol Currently creating an ERC721 edition via the Escher721Factory.sol contract requires a user to have the CREATORROLE in the main Escher.sol contract. This...

Ether can be lost in LPDA contract if sale.dropPerSecond is set improperly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function createLPDASale requires only sale.dropPerSecond 0 but if sale.dropPerSecond sale.startPrice / sale.endTime - sale.startTime function getPrice will revert except the case when all editions are sold before reaching negative price. Therefore, the b...